Examining Protection and Gender in Cash and Voucher Transfers

This study investigates whether cash and voucher transfers work towards improving protection of (or at least doing no further harm to) beneficiaries, and what impact they could have on gender and community dynamics. It draws on qualitative data from eight case studies in situations ranging from emergency relief to development across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

The shift in transfer modalities of aid from in-kind assistance to cash and vouchers provides an opportunity for agencies to incorporate protection and gender issues more fully into their programming – to address not only new issues arising from cash and vouchers, but also longer-standing protection and gender issues not previously addressed. Most of the protection and gender issues raised within the context of this study are not new and are not unique to cash and voucher transfers. Rather, they more often relate to programme design, lack of baseline data about protection and gender issues in the programming context, and lack of substantive engagement of beneficiary populations in programme design. Revisiting programme design to include more inputs from programme participants at early stages, in addition to more thorough protection and gender analysis, would serve to address many of the concerns noted by this study.

While certain protection problems existed with the use of cash and voucher transfers (targeting, issues with CFW, access to/knowledge of technology, ID issues, distance and cost to get cash, social jealousy), many of these issues would also have existed with in-kind assistance. This suggests the need to move away from thinking of cash and vouchers in isolation and to focus on how programme design can best incorporate gender and protection and, where possible, promote protection outcomes.

Recommendations:

Dignity

Seek to avoid past problems or replicate some of the issues arising from in-kind distribution. Distributing cash and vouchers using technology, where the necessary infrastructure exists or can be put in place, offers opportunities to avoid distribution issues and ensures flexibility.
Conditions attached to cash and vouchers (such as requiring that children be sent to school) are a double-edged sword in that they may promote beneficial behaviour, but also restrict choice and take decisions out of the hands of beneficiaries. Consult beneficiaries about what conditions are appropriate and useful, and how to ensure that there is still choice/dignity.
Re-examine concerns about antisocial spending, because what humanitarian actors deem anti-social may in fact have positive protection outcomes.
Accept that cash intended for specific purposes (such as for food) may sometimes be spent on other things to satisfy household needs, such as clothing, school fees or home improvements.

Empowerment

Recognize that “empowerment” is unlikely to come as a result of one intervention or just from providing cash, vouchers or in-kind assistance. Steps can be taken towards empowerment through programme activities.
Recognize that an important practice for beneficiaries is to give them more decision-making power in designing the assistance they receive early on, rather than consulting them afterwards about a predesigned project.

Safety

For interventions with labour requirements (for example, CFW), put in place safeguards for worker safety and protection, such as planning for illness, accidents, injury or death. For the longer term, investigate the possibility of a workers’ insurance scheme/compensation for workers’ injury.

Improving protection and gender/labour issues in CFW activities

Establish and publicize clear agency policies for pregnant and lactating women involved in CFW, including the types and hours of work appropriate to the women’s condition.

Ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place in CFW interventions to address issues relating to gender, such as additional work burdens placed on women or men.

Ensure that CFW (or FFW) activities are appropriate for the target group, and that mechanisms are in place to address the needs of labour-poor vulnerable households that cannot participate.

Consider the impacts of family size on the effectiveness of assistance. In cases where there are larger families and only one person is able to work, the impact of the assistance may be diminished. Adapt programme design in consultation with beneficiaries, including considering allowing more than one person from larger families to work.

Access to assistance

Assist beneficiaries (where possible) to get formal ID (for example, through referrals to government or legal aid services), but propose interim solutions as necessary, such as temporary ID cards or tokens, or in-kind assistance (where feasible), so that those without ID are not excluded from assistance.
Provide more information to communities and increase their engagement in the targeting process to ensure that targeting is understood and seen as fair. This can be done in community meetings, through the media, leaflets and posters, and complaint mechanisms.
Ensure that the method and location of cash distribution do not compromise access because of distance and cost issues. Consult with beneficiaries in advance about preferred locations and methods of distribution.

Participation

Use a more participatory approach with beneficiaries. Programmes are often presented to beneficiaries for comment rather than for their active participation in planning and design.

Social cohesion

Analyse how households spend their money and ensure that the cash and vouchers distributed are sufficient to avoid negative coping mechanisms (such as removing children from school for labour).
In addressing social jealousy issues, sensitization of non-beneficiaries may ensure their understanding of programmes and targeting.

Accessibility of technology

Provide training on technology for beneficiaries and disseminate information in different forms (for example, posters, leaflets) designed specifically to target] marginalized groups such as the older individuals and persons with disabilities.
Mobile phone technology offers the opportunity for two-way communication (messages sent to phones and questions received from beneficiaries).
Provide training for key project stakeholders (for example, NGO or bank staff) to help in the distribution of cash, including training to beneficiaries encountering difficulties with technology.
Where possible, use existing technologies that are accessible or already popular with and familiar to beneficiaries, such as mobile phone banking.

Summary